From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Fri Mar 15 2002 - 14:47:45 MST
"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Louis Newstrom wrote:
>
> > So it's not a slippery slope (meaning we might go further), because it's
> > already here. Enhancement is considered "unethical" by the AMA. We have to
> > work to make enhancement actually allowed, then accepted, then viewed as
> > "necessary equipment" for some people.
>
> Are you sure that is the precise AMA position? If it is are a lot
> of plastic surgeons performing "unethical" procedures.
None of which are covered by insurance. Then again, the AMA is not a
monolithic group. Only a small percentage of doctors are actually
members. The AMA has devolved into a rather well promoted clique of
aristo-liberal practitioners with far more clout than they deserve,
primarily due to their medical journal.
Where things will get interesting with augmentation is when an
augmentation for a handicapped person makes them MORE capable than the
norm. When this occurs (and it is already in the area of amputee
sprinters), then it will become undemocratic to prevent the normal from
becoming augmented. The luddites may try to pass regs which require that
augmentations do not provide more ability than the norm posesses,
whereupon the advocates for the handicapped will ramp up their lobbying
bandwagons...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:59 MST